Los Angeles daily herald., 1887-09-02
broke up few minutes later, and all
departed, satisfied that Chinatown
would not go on the tract of land men,
toned
SAN JOAQUIN RANCHO.
Defendant w. D., Smith Files q
Special Answer.

lIessrs. Bicknel. & White yesterda,
filed the answer of w. d. Smith in tn,
case of A. r. Davis ct al. against w
d. Smith ct al, to have it declared
that the San Joaquin Rancho had beer
sold to him on the 10th Of July insteat
of defendant as directed by those who
had charge Of the sale. The answer o.
w. ID. Smith is for himself and moi
for his co-defendants and defendant
admits that on 10th of July, 1887, said
property was offered for sale. but de.
, nies that such offer was made in pur-
! suance Of the said offer and agreement
set forth in the complaint, but alleg.
es that said property was 80 offered
| for sale to the highest bidder. subject
to said agreement and subject to the
conditions at that time mutually ar
ranged and agreed upon by all the
| parties thereto and by all parties in
interest. Admits that at said sale,
said plaintiff and defendant were bid
ders for SAID property, but denies that
| it was sold as agreed upon by all
parties to this action; or said plaintiff
bid for said property the sum of 81 1856,
900, or any other sum in excess of ST.
375 900; denies that plaintiff bid
highest or that said property was struck
down to plaintiff or that the sale was
declared to have been made to plaintiff
or was changed by the auctioneer, but
admits that the same was declared
sold to defendant for 81 $3.50, 900, and
defendant alleges following facts in re-
ference to such sale
On the said 10th day of July, 1887,
at the time specified the different par
ties to this action, together with others,
whom this defendant is informed and
believes were desirous of becoming
purchasers of said land and
property, met at the office of Bicknell
& White in the city of Los Angeles,
and before said property was offered
for sale, it was suggested by plaintiff
that the time during which said prop
erty should be offered for sale,. and
bids therefor should be received
should be limited and made definite
and fixed and in pursuance of said
suggestion it was then and there
mutually agreed upon and understood
by all the parties, plaintiff and de-
fendant and all others, that the time
for bidding and for receiving bids
should be limited to half an hour
from the exact time when the lands
were first offered for sale and subject
also to the terms and offer of sale set
fo,xh lan~fh thn NlnIv1t horn.
in, and it was further mutually agreed
that J. D. Bicknell should act as
referee and timekeeper for all parties
and should receive bids and decide
questions of difference, and that his
decision as to time and bids should be
final and binding upon all parties
concerned and time was thereby
made Of the essence of said offer and
of said sale. And this defendant
further alleges that all the foregoing
preliminaries having been arranged,
the said lands were by his co-defen-
dants thereupon first offered for sale,
the exact time of such offer being then
declared by said J. D. Bicknell and
thereafter bids were made by plaintiff
and this defendant from time to time
within the said thirty minutes
limit and the last and best
bid made within said time was made
by the defendant, and was of the
amount of 81, 100000 and no other
bid within the prescribed time was
thereafter made, and thereupon said
j. D. Bicknell announced that the
time for bidding had expired and that
the land was sold for $1,3S0,000 but
by inadvertance he mentioned the
name of plaintiff as the purchaser,
and seeing his mistake he Immediately
corrected the same and announced
this defendant as the purchaser, and
the defendant alleges that the bid of
81 1886 900 made by plaintiff was
made after the limit of time agreed
upon had expired, and after any fur
ther offer of said premises had been
withdrawn by the mutual agreement
of all parties as aforesaid and he al
leges thai 40 further bids were made
by him for the reason that time had
been called by the referee and it was
his full understanding that under the
agreement aforesaid no other or fur
ther bids would be received or enter
tanned.
The defendant denied that plaintiff
was bona fide purchaser at the said
sale or that he purchased the land
from the trustees and alleges that he
deposited certified check for $50 1000
as required by the trustees and that
he has complied with all the terms
and conditions of the sale. Defend
ant asks that his co-defendants be re-
strained from making sale of the
premises to plaintiff and from ex-
ecuting to him deed, that the Court
decree that said sale was made to him
and that he is entitled to a deed from
the trustees upon his performing the
condition of his bid.